Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope During the Years 185052-186467; With Table of Cases and Alphabetical Index (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1884 edition. Excerpt: ...property for 1825, that the Master approved of the withdrawal of the property, that one J. P. Cloete had since offered 1875 for the property, if the Master would advance him this on special mortgage. That there had been negociations for the purchase of this farm between J. P. Cloete and respondent, previous to the 20th December, and that subsequent to the sale J. P. Cloete had offered to applicant 1875 for the farm in case applicant should be held to be the purchaser of it. The applicant in reply admitted that it was arranged between him and J. P. Cloete that the latter should have the farm for 1875. Brand, for applicant: --The applicant comes into Court as a purchaser at highest bidding; his bid was accepted because it was repeated by the auctioneer. The applicant intends to bring an action, therefore an interdict should be granted to prevent the sale by private agreement. The sale on the 20th December was a bona fide one, all the creditors might have come and offered biddings. Porter, A.G., iov respondent: --There will be damage to the estate by the delay if this interdict is granted, until the question of sale is decided. This is a case different from that of a common sale. The applicant has his action for damages if he is damnified. musgrave, J.: --But suppose the buyer be a man of straw. J De Smidt If there has been a sale the purchaser is entitled to transfer, steytier. but there was no perfected sale, for the auctioneer never brought down the hammer. A bidder can retract his bid till the hammer is down, and if the respondent in such a case cannot sue the applicant, neither can the applicant sue respondent (see Stephen, Nisi Prius, p. 509; Payne vs. Cave, 3 D. & E. p. 148). In a case of this sort, even if the sale..

R570

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5700
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1884 edition. Excerpt: ...property for 1825, that the Master approved of the withdrawal of the property, that one J. P. Cloete had since offered 1875 for the property, if the Master would advance him this on special mortgage. That there had been negociations for the purchase of this farm between J. P. Cloete and respondent, previous to the 20th December, and that subsequent to the sale J. P. Cloete had offered to applicant 1875 for the farm in case applicant should be held to be the purchaser of it. The applicant in reply admitted that it was arranged between him and J. P. Cloete that the latter should have the farm for 1875. Brand, for applicant: --The applicant comes into Court as a purchaser at highest bidding; his bid was accepted because it was repeated by the auctioneer. The applicant intends to bring an action, therefore an interdict should be granted to prevent the sale by private agreement. The sale on the 20th December was a bona fide one, all the creditors might have come and offered biddings. Porter, A.G., iov respondent: --There will be damage to the estate by the delay if this interdict is granted, until the question of sale is decided. This is a case different from that of a common sale. The applicant has his action for damages if he is damnified. musgrave, J.: --But suppose the buyer be a man of straw. J De Smidt If there has been a sale the purchaser is entitled to transfer, steytier. but there was no perfected sale, for the auctioneer never brought down the hammer. A bidder can retract his bid till the hammer is down, and if the respondent in such a case cannot sue the applicant, neither can the applicant sue respondent (see Stephen, Nisi Prius, p. 509; Payne vs. Cave, 3 D. & E. p. 148). In a case of this sort, even if the sale..

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

July 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

July 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 6mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

120

ISBN-13

978-1-150-14207-9

Barcode

9781150142079

Categories

LSN

1-150-14207-3



Trending On Loot